Shouldn't Slaking be classed as a pseudo-legendary?

[Still Probably Modio]

I mean, he has all the neccasary atributes...
He is a stage two Pokémon
And he has high stats (the same as Groudon, Kyogre and Regigas, making him the strongest of all non legendary mon)

So why not?

 

[Kavidun]

Because his stats aren't the EXACT same as the other Pseudo Legendaries.

 

[Fawkes.]

Dat pesky truant ability is probably the reason why it isn't

 

[Kavidun]

Dat pesky truant ability is probably the reason why it isn't

No, a Psuedo-Legend has to have the right Stat Total.

 

[Joshawott]

To make it more clear for some people, all the previous "Pseudo-Legendary" Pokémon (Dragonite, Tyranitar, Salamence, Metagross, Garchomp and Hydreigon) all have a base stat total of 600 (compared to Slaking's 670; which is the same as Groudon, Kyogre and Regigigas'). The base stat total is also the main reason why Flygon (520) and Haxorus (540).

Another point to add, is that each Pseudo legendary is used by the Elite 4 (with the exception of Hydreigon, who is used by Ghetsis, which is still a 'boss' character in the main story). Dragonite is used by Lance, Tyranitar is used by Lance in Stadium 2, and by Blue in the repeat round in FRLG, Salamence is used by Drake, Metagross is used by Steven Stone and Caitlin and Garchomp is used by Cynthia. Also, all the Gen I-IV dragon-type pseudo-legendaries are used by Lance in his rematch in HGSS. Slaking is used by...Normam, the fifth Gym Leader in Hoenn.

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

It can't be a pseudo-legendary if one of its offense base stats isn't around 134.

 

[Still Probably Modio]

So, Slaking is too strong to be a pseudo?
Word.

 

[Space Opera]

I always thought that Truant was the reason. People say that every Pseudo-legendary Pokémon should have a BST of 600, but there's no reason why a trend/tradition/pattern couldn't be broken - all but one have been Shadow Pokémon, all but one can learn Dragon-type moves, all but one have a Base Stat over 125, etc.

 

[Data_Error]

On top of that, the Pseudo-Legendaries are typically the last evolutionary family in their respective Pokédex listings, with the exception of Hydregion (which is only followed by Volcarona, which is closer to the title than Slaking IMO). Though, as the others have noted, I have always simply assumed that it gets normal classification due to its crippling ability, effectively limiting its usefulness to the same stat ranking as most other Pokémon. Slaking gets different treatment in-universe than the other pseudo-legendaries, too - the only reason it would really have for the classification is its raw stat power, which isn't really enough, I think.

 

[Celer]

Slakoth is also too common a Pokemon and, if I'm not mistaken, the number of egg-cycles to hatch is lower than all the other Pseudo-Legendaries. Plus there's the fact that all Pseudo-Legendaries have double types, but that's less convincing a fact.

 

[The Outrage]

To make it more clear for some people, all the previous "Pseudo-Legendary" Pokémon (Dragonite, Tyranitar, Salamence, Metagross, Garchomp and Hydreigon) all have a base stat total of 600 (compared to Slaking's 670; which is the same as Groudon, Kyogre and Regigigas'). The base stat total is also the main reason why Flygon (520) and Haxorus (540).

Another point to add, is that each Pseudo legendary is used by the Elite 4 (with the exception of Hydreigon, who is used by Ghetsis, which is still a 'boss' character in the main story). Dragonite is used by Lance, Tyranitar is used by Lance in Stadium 2, and by Blue in the repeat round in FRLG, Salamence is used by Drake, Metagross is used by Steven Stone and Caitlin and Garchomp is used by Cynthia. Also, all the Gen I-IV dragon-type pseudo-legendaries are used by Lance in his rematch in HGSS. Slaking is used by...Normam, the fifth Gym Leader in Hoenn.

A really good point to add is that "pseudo-legendary" was an arbitrary definition created by the fandom very early in the franchise, so any "trend" you are listing right now isn't a definition, but common features future Pokemon we've considered pseudo-legendaries have. If you take your definition right down to every detail, no one would have considered Tyrannitar a pseudo until Stadium, yet I am sure many people considered it one even without playing the game (I for one is an example). Of course, the more exemplars we have, the better we can compare new examples to our current conception, but we must remember never to be too rigid. After all, until GenIII, and no generation after, did we believe we could have two pseudo-legendaries, nor one that did not have a x4 weakness. Until Garchomp, we did not have one that only had the highest stat being 130, and until Gen III, we didn't have a pseudo-legendary with the highest stat at 135. Now in Gen V, we have one who's largest stat is 125, definitely contradicting one of the user's definitions above, and being the only pseudo-legendary with no hidden ability.

Really, the only definition is fandom consensus.

 

[Joshawott]

A really good point to add is that "pseudo-legendary" was an arbitrary definition created by the fandom very early in the franchise, so any "trend" you are listing right now isn't a definition, but common features future Pokemon we've considered pseudo-legendaries have. If you take your definition right down to every detail, no one would have considered Tyrannitar a pseudo until Stadium, yet I am sure many people considered it one even without playing the game (I for one is an example). Of course, the more exemplars we have, the better we can compare new examples to our current conception, but we must remember never to be too rigid. After all, until GenIII, and no generation after, did we believe we could have two pseudo-legendaries, nor one that did not have a x4 weakness. Until Garchomp, we did not have one that only had the highest stat being 130, and until Gen III, we didn't have a pseudo-legendary with the highest stat at 135. Now in Gen V, we have one who's largest stat is 125, definitely contradicting one of the user's definitions above, and being the only pseudo-legendary with no hidden ability.

Really, the only definition is fandom consensus.

Indeed it is merely a phrase created by the fandom. However, all because it isn't something officially recognised by The Pokémon Company does not mean it doesn't exist. Sure there are some exceptions to some of the fan established rules (such as Garchomp's position in the Pokédex; in fact, a lot of the more minor ones could be argued as looking too deep into things), however, it wouldn't be surprising if one of the orders the team of Pokémon designers is given during development of a new generation is to make a 2-stage Pokémon with a base stat total of 600 that will benefit the metagame (and before anyone says otherwise, GameFreak have admitted in Official Nintendo Magazine that they keep an eye on what Pokémon are used at official events, so they know which Pokémon are too abusable so they can create counters etc). For example, the only "pseudo-legendary" Pokémon that still isn't heavily used is Dragonite; because it was outclassed by another - Salamence. Sure, Hydreigon's useage may go down next year, but it was a pretty popular choice in VGC11.

 

[The Outrage]

I know those categories exist, there's no way they don't when millions of fans have come to the same conclusion. However, I am merely pointing out people should exercise caution and realize what we have there in your list isn't a definition, but collective features averaged out from multiple examples, and that from each example, there are exceptions.

You've been in this fandom a long time, so you know how anal fans can be.

 

[Joshawott]

(Not my list; it's on Bulbapedia's page xD). But yeah, obviously there are exceptions, but Pokémon are placed in that category for having quite a few of those points in common. To bring the thread back on course; Slaking doesn't have a single one of those things in common with another, so thus, Slaking isn't a pseudo-legendary, by the fan definition of the term.